1) My recommendation to the OS/4 team is that publish their files on public sites like hobbes (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/), sourceforge, etc, etc... and make the announcement of their progress via OS2World.com or the other OS/2 news sites. I will be happy to post their progress as news.

2) My other recommendation to the OS/4 team is to open source their software under any OSI approved open source license. If the source code is available and the use license is defined and clear there will be no doubt about their work and many other people will be interested on supporting him. Otherwise we will be always on the doubt about how to use the files they produce.

About the "xxxx" server, it had been blacklisted on this forum because it contains copyrighted files on a Warp 4 boot image contained there for public download (BootFlash512.7z).

OS2World.com site can not afford problems related to linking illegal files, since we don't have resources to solve any legal problem that may appear in the future. I prefer to blacklist a site than have the risk to shut down OS2World.com.

valerius, I personally envy you... I still don't know how to get banned from him

2Martin: Was very surprised that my personal projects 'Flash512' and 'BootCD' also got blacklisted. Their purpose is demonstrate the new OS/2 booting technology I invented. (Flash512 is a 512 Mb bootable flash with OS/2, BootCD is a newer boot disk using the new method of booting from 'ramfs.ifs' RAMdisk). I specially removed things like ACPI or Panorama from the disk, but as you understand, could not remove Warp4 files as then there will be nothing to boot. Yes, so, OS/2 community must remain without the Live CD/flash again, and nobody cares. Somebody cares about IBM's copyrights though IBM doesn't care about OS/2 for a long time...

Yes, I had an idea to make something like PE builder, but for OS/2, but I have no time for that. So, then I'll remove my boot disks from public area, if you insist. Then those interested in my boot disk will need to ask me to give them 'hands to hands'.

PS: These files are not related to OS/4 (the boot disks contain only OS/4 loader and kernel, together with IBM ones)

That's the way copyright works, using a little bit of something that's copyright protected is just as bad as pinching the lot. Think of it as you are saying its a little bit dead, so that's not as bad as completely dead - the end results the same

You also need to remember its not just IBM but Microsoft that is involved in OS/2 code copyright, if it was just IBM involved I suspect they probably would open source OS/2 code as no one in IBM really cares but because Microsoft AND others were involved, its a different ball game. Bending the law is not better than breaking the law in US, UK, and AU, the penalties are often the same

Everything on your server needs to be clean, the same applies to OS4 code, you cant take what someone else has produced and modify it, to be legally correct it needs to be done in a 'clean room' environment with no 'dirty' (read copyrighted) code involved.

In relation to your Flash512 and BootCD you could provide a howto.txt text file, and all the other non copyright files, leaving it up to the user to add the copyright files themselves. By doing it this way you are in effect 'keeping your hands clean'.

My understanding re the kernels you provide is that you could provide a patch file only, once more leaving it up to the user to provide the kernel themselves as well as a quick readme.txt file explaining the simple patch process. I could be wrong here but as you are not providing someone else's code, or altered code, only the means of altering what the user already has, this then becomes legal.

You also need to remember its not just IBM but Microsoft that is involved in OS/2 code copyright, if it was just IBM involved I suspect they probably would open source OS/2 code as no one in IBM really cares but because Microsoft AND others were involved, its a different ball game.

Actually, Microsoft already told IBM they didn't care if it was Open Sourced... IBM chose not to do the Open Source of OS/2 due to the expense. IBM will Open Source if it either doesn't cost them much or even if the cost is high if there will be a return on the investment. They did not see any return on the investment if they were to Open Source OS/2.

...Microsoft already told IBM they didn't care if it was Open Sourced...

I personally do not trust that kind of statements from Microsoft. I remember that on the OOXML fight they promise ODF support on Office 2010. At the end they put a mediocre ODF support that breaks the ODS file formulas as "values".

If it is not signed, I can not trust Microsoft. They may even twist the statement as saying "...Yes, we say we don't care, but that doesn't mean we can not charge a license fee"

2Yan: Yes, I already thought about a HOWTO or a tool like PE builder which could be supplied together with my own files... But the problems are 1) the lack of time 2) the distributions of OS/2 files is a carefully chosen collection of files, so versions does matter very much. For example, IBM's versions of os2ldr hang on many machines when booting from flash disk, so I worked with OS/4 team for their os2ldr to be fixed. And much drivers must have definite versions too. So, I must pass all such problems to user's shoulders. And, as it was noticed, many users will stop using it because of the problems. So I see no good exit from this situation

PS: The os2 dot ru is not my site and my files were only hosting there. I am also have no relation with OS/4 project (I can participate here only as a tester, not more).

Doesn't matter what Microsoft say, IBM's not even willing to get the legal departments talking because of both the $ involved, and distrust of Microsoft, so yes you could say certainly no ROI for IBM to open source OS/2 according to the accountants, the initial hurdles cost to much, and not much of OS/2 can be used elsewhere anyway. It's in the to hard basket and there I'm sure it will stay.

You also need to remember its not just IBM but Microsoft that is involved in OS/2 code copyright, if it was just IBM involved I suspect they probably would open source OS/2 code as no one in IBM really cares but because Microsoft AND others were involved, its a different ball game.

Actually, Microsoft already told IBM they didn't care if it was Open Sourced... IBM chose not to do the Open Source of OS/2 due to the expense. IBM will Open Source if it either doesn't cost them much or even if the cost is high if there will be a return on the investment. They did not see any return on the investment if they were to Open Source OS/2.

Well, it was more than just getting Microsoft to clear things. There are many dozens of other companies that contributed code to OS/2, licensed to IBM, for which IBM would need to get clearance from. Some of those companies exist in name only now (or as a different entity of the same name), making things even more difficult. One such company was Commodore.

Then there's technology that is still in part used by other companies (who I am sure would not want it open sourced), such as supposedly Apple.

Side note: last I heard, tracking down all of the sources for much of OS/2 would be near to impossible. Are the relevant sections available? Not a clue - but not something I think we'd get an answer to anyway. As it is, most of the people who worked on various subsystems have "disappeared".

2Ian Manners: An interesting thought has come... If this is not a secret -- everybody knows that your site contains many OS/2 kernels and fixes. But aren't they OS/2 binaries (which cannot be redistributed without IBM's permission)? So, do you have a special permission given by IBM? Could you open a secret to other sites' admins -- how is it possible to distribute OS/2 files when even eCS Demo CD is not permitted to redistribute? I'm just curious -- I am do not sell my CD/flash too, get no profit/just for fun, but it's illegal. So, maybe, I just could ask you to host it on your site (if you agree, and maybe, OS/4 files too?).

PS: If you have no IBM's permission to do so, what makes your site to be different from 'warez' ones, when you say other sites are?

2Ian Manners: An interesting thought has come... If this is not a secret -- everybody knows that your site contains many OS/2 kernels and fixes. But aren't they OS/2 binaries (which cannot be redistributed without IBM's permission)? So, do you have a special permission given by IBM? Could you open a secret to other sites' admins -- how is it possible to distribute OS/2 files when even eCS Demo CD is not permitted to redistribute? I'm just curious -- I am do not sell my CD/flash too, get no profit/just for fun, but it's illegal. So, maybe, I just could ask you to host it on your site (if you agree, and maybe, OS/4 files too?).

PS: If you have no IBM's permission to do so, what makes your site to be different from 'warez' ones, when you say other sites are?

Stop wasting our time:(1) we do not host kernel files here(2) the kernel files you speak of are from IBM or Mensys, who own the code, or the rights to distribute the binaries(3) the eCS Demo CD is released by Mensys, who has the rights to distribute it. (4) You have no such rights to distribute such(5) In the country OS/2 World is hosted in, selling (or making money) is not required for one to be violating intellectual property laws

2RobertM: The question was directed to Ian, I don't asked os2world to host any files. And there was a bit of joke here, so do not treat it too seriously I want everybody to understand me correctly: I mean, os2site hosts many OS/2-related binaries, and nobody sues him. His site is very useful, I don't want to be shut it down. But I interested in his answer, what is the secret? Nothing personal for Ian, just want to have understood...

PS: And no desire to scandal, we've already got a productive dialog with Martin on #os2russian, so need to be more constructive and understand each other...

os2site.com host some kernel TESTCASE files, and some kernel files that are in IBM publicly available legacy boot images mirrored in the 'boot' section.

I have not made changes to the intellectual property of IBM or other entities to any of the files hosted on os2site.com, all copyright and ownership information remains intact on/in all the files hosted on os2site.com.

I was given permission years ago (hmm, probably around 2000/2001) to keep copies of the testcase kernels on the proviso that I only keep a couple of the latest ones, I am not allowed to put the entire testcase archive online, which is why you will note that the latest/last IBM kernels are not there either.

Kernels that are a part of Fixpacks (ie, contained in the fixpacks) are also ok to mirror as long as they are ONLY the publically available fixpacks. This is also why the latest fixpacks are not available on os2site.com, or on hobbes for that matter.

For someone to commence legal action against me they have to first issue a takedown order, then I have to ignore it's directives within the time limit set, in theory, the reality is no one is now sure of what happens because American law enforcement appears to be able to request local Australian and NZ law enforcement to knock your door down and take all your stuff away before they issue a takedown order on their way out of the door..

2Ian: Sorry for an incovenience, I really didn't thought that it is possible to get permission from a corporation like IBM to an individual like you -- thought that it was possible only for corporations like Mensys/Serenity. The reasons are its bureaucracy and money -- it is known how ended up the petitions to opensource OS/2, for example. So, if IBM allowed it to you, then it knew what it did, and it could not allow it to random people. So, you were appreciated by IBM for something. So, my big apologies, I only wanted some justice. I was mistaken, I'm sorry

P.S. also, I am, together with many OS/2 users, very thankful to you for your site support, because some files are hard to find on other sites, even they're missing sometimes on IBM's sites -- as IBM forgot about OS/2 and removed many files. So, I want it the long live. Also, I want to say that other sites are carefully collecting OS/2 files, so if we would persecute them as pirates, then only several 'legal' sites will remain, so if they suddenly became down, the community will be in danger. So, if to follow the law literally, we could destroy our community itself. So, it has benefit only for people like I named previously, these people blackmail the community sites and try to make FUD. Yes, they're formally right, but make that for their own profits.